« Death of a Salesman | MiddleClassBill's Blog | Pelosi's absurd notion that a VAT will level the playing field and not impact the middle-class »
Wiretapping helped catch Zazi
Why do people want to curtail the Government's ability to wiretap terrorist suspects when it helped catch people like Zazi?
Advertisement
Talk about not getting it. It's not that we against wiretapping to catch terrorist. It's that we against illegal, indiscriminate wire tapping. Now if you are fine with having your conversations listened to fine. I am not.
October 2, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you define illegal or indiscriminate? Unfortunately, we don't know who the terrorists are. So it would seem that it's unavoidable that in the process of trying to root out legitimate terrorists, there will be some innocent, law abiding individuals who will have their conversations listened to.
I am totally fine with having my conversations listened to. If the government for some reason suspects me of plotting terrorist activities, then they should be listening to my phone calls.
October 2, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If the government for some reason suspects me of plotting terrorist activities, then they should be listening to my phone calls."
That's fine, but right now they can do it and do it without having to suspect you of anything.
October 2, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you think the Government did not obtain warrants to wiretap Zazi?
October 2, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I say that I thought they didn't obtain warrants?
October 2, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB: How do you define illegal or indiscriminate
Bloggers don't define it MCB, are you that dumb or just faking it? For a guy who studied at UNC one wonders if you were asleep for all those lectures.
Wiretapping for Dummies:
(1) there are three branches of our government.
(2) they are legislative, executive and judicial.
(3) the legislature defines what is illegal, like terrorism (blowing stuff up etc) and they pass laws.
(4) the executive branch is the FBI, BATF or 'cops' they enforce the law.
(5) due to privacy restrictions of the US Constitution the executive branch (like FBI) is required to ask a judge (judicial branch) for a warrant to wiretap someone, they can even ask for it after the fact in emergencies.
Judges are to weigh the evidence and give permission to go ahead. This is done in order to prevent rogue agents from wiretapping whoever they want to, or whoever their supervisors or politically appointed superiors in the executive branch want them to monitor electronically.
Its called 'checks and balances' and was written into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers when they divided government into the three branches.
October 2, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will try not to speak in the same condescending tone that you choose to use.
Thanks for the lesson on the three branches of government but I don't see your point other than to highlight that the FBI needs to get a judge's approval. In this case, the agents did obtain warrants in order to wiretap Zazi. I don't see it as illegal what they did.
Jsfox said he is against illegal wiretaps. But what the Feds did to catch Zazi seems to be within the framework of the Patriot Act. If it wasn't for the much maligned Patriot Act, I don't think we would have caught Zazi as quickly as we did.
October 2, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I will condescend to you, because you deserve no better.
You show little to no understanding of what the term "legal" means. And your incomprehension has the clear whiff of deliberate ignorance.
And why am I not surprised?
No one is opposed to proper measures taken against those conducting illegal activities. No one, got that, Sparky? No...fucking...one.
What we who value the rule of law oppose is indiscriminate violations of the law by those sworn to uphold it.
Now, I understand that someone as deliberately obtuse (read: moronic and belligerent - always a bad combination) as you is either incapable or unwilling to recognize that distinction - or possibly both.
So I'm sure you're fine with President Barack Hussein Obama's Justice Department listening in on every minute of your phone calls and reading every misbegotten word of your email. Aren't you? Because, in your pathetic eyes, it's all good, isn't it?
What? You're not? Why? Got something to hide?
October 2, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Grouch, I am fine with Obama's team or Bush's team tapping my phones. This is not an Obama vs Bush thing like you try to make it out to be. I am actually very happy with Obama's stance on wiretapping and glad he reversed some of his campaign promises on that point.
It's very easy I guess for you to play armchair quarterback and say what is "indiscrminate".
October 3, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The objection to Bush Administration illegal wiretapping related to the decision to ignore the Fourth Amendment, and to conduct wiretaps without a warrant even though Congress had enacted legislation allowing the wiretaps first and the judicial approval later in emergency circumstances.
The Zazi case illustrates the principle that terrorist suspects can be caught by legal means. It's further damning evidence against the constitutional violations perpetrated by the previous Administration.
October 2, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink